X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=pFh
	kn9Z5wkj3UnD4BDszp91ynwfcyVRojr3JQo8qxTgi3BcVsfWLdmf/pZjnPSmeeQU
	37nlR11wWnJDwvJRvsjiYJ1tfanwalCFVFB5xb2cE6scZ4nKh8gGCjfeAdQjyb1T
	sCzQ60DtYvHM6EE3y/S6q7LfbNvHDVRsAzUIYpRA=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=4OGX9J3Ik
	3zcI1ZFNiFH70YwrUs=; b=oQCToGS5uqiNQ1jijyMCV2VVfJzux/8c7Xue2uTB7
	AFgdqJs9iAQUU2JohZpfMghMI6vo8VatxUmT9cu9wVDSjbSXcyUWMnpvHSWX0365
	1zS+PLcLSkMFg2iVS/tJ0gH327dwdWxcEudTxFzxGW3gCi2F0ZoJi3zao29tVSwn
	tE=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=1300, determining, determination, disguised
X-HELO:	plane.gmane.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Achim Gratz <Stromeko AT NexGo DOT DE>
Subject:	Performance of "ls -F"
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:44:48 +0000 (UTC)
Lines:	12
Message-ID:	<loom.20160121T163405-489@post.gmane.org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

I am finding a large performance gap between plain "ls" and "ls -F" in a
directory with many files on a network share (NetApp disguised as NTFS if
that matters).  This has been there for quite a while, I've just now
realized what the reason was (I have "ls -F" as an alias for "ls" in my
interactive shells).  In a directory with 1300 files, a plain "ls" completes
in 0.3s, while "ls -F" requires about 95s.  Determining the file class seems
to require around 70...90ms per file, which I can confirm also for
directories with a lot less files.  What's involved in that determination
that takes such a long time?

Regards,
Achim.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -